Wrongful Dismissal Law UNJUST for the lower income worker, and the LONG time it takes for the Industrial Court to hear and decide on a case DETERS employees from lower and middle income group from going to court to claim for reinstatement.
REINSTATEMENT is the only claim that a worker seeks when he/she is UNLAWFULLY terminated/dismissed by the Employer. Reinstatement means the worker gets back his job and returns to work - BUT the delay in cases makes it near impossible for any worker to get back his/her job - For this to happen, the cases must proceed fast and end within 3, or at most 6 months.
Sacked Maxis executive awarded RM1mil for unfair dismissal
The Industrial Court rules that the company had failed to provide a satisfactory justification for why it decided to terminate Tung Yoke Leng.
Court chairman S Vanithamany said Maxis Broadband Sdn Bhd’s decision to terminate Tung Yoke Leng after 25 years of service was not made with just cause or excuse.
She ordered the company to pay Tung RM416,640 in back wages after deducting 30% from the total sum awarded on account of post-dismissal earnings.
Tung, whose last drawn salary was RM24,800, was also awarded an additional RM620,000 as compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
In total, the court awarded Tung RM1,036,640.
Tung, who joined the company in 1996, claimed she had in the course of her employment handled many roles in the company.
In January 2021, she was—despite having no prior knowledge or experience in auditing—seconded to the audit department for two years as part of a job development programme.
Although Tung’s performance had previously been rated as exemplary, she in June 2021 was placed under a performance improvement plan (PIP) after being told she had not met the expected standards at three reviews.
She said she was not given adequate and competent support staff.
Tung, whose employment was terminated on Sept 1, 2021, was served with a warning letter at the end of the first three reviews.
However, on the fourth review, the company found that she met all PIP goals.
She said the reviews were unfair as issues were continuously carried forward from one review to the next review, and piled up, making them impossible to complete.
Tung said she had brought the snowballing of KPI criteria to the company’s attention via email on several occasions.
Vanithamany said it was clear that Tung was not warned of the consequences of her being placed on an enhanced PIP programme.
She said the company had acted unfairly as the support staff assigned to Tung had no experience.
“She had to coach and guide the staff. This court believes that a fair and sufficient opportunity was not provided to Tung during the PIP to assist her to improve her performance,” the award read.
Vanithamany also found that Tung had been terminated solely based on the results of the enhanced PIP.
“The company failed to satisfactorily justify why it decided to terminate the claimant (Tung) despite the results of the fourth review,” she said in a 19-page award released last week.
Vanithamany also found that Tung had not received any warning prior to being placed in the PIP. Neither was she cautioned that her service may be terminated due to her poor performance.
Although the company had clearly stated that the entire PIP process would be documented, the court found that the company had failed to adduce evidence of coaching and guidance provided to her.
Vanithamany also found that Tung had been allocated “inexperienced resources” during her PIP. She noted that Tung had managed to achieve her KPI during the PIP despite having been given the extra task of coaching and guiding them.
Lawyer Ravindra Murugavell appeared for Tung, while Leonard Yeoh and Chen Mei Yan represented the company.
Posts
